Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Scott Leibrand)
2. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (William Herrin)
3. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (Scott Leibrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:37:15 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<CAGkMwz6_iXb2ke_5KLryT=a59ds54gx5xdc-ngk83luxob-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Would you be interested in submitting a policy proposal to address the
issue? If so, just fill out the short template at
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html and submit it to
[email protected] (and Cc: [email protected] if you want it posted here). I
(and likely several other AC members) would also be happy to help if you're
unsure about anything.
Once you propose a policy change, the AC assigns shepherds to work directly
with you, verifies that the topic is in scope and has a clearly defined
problem statement / rationale (or works with you to clarify it), and then
if it meets those requirements, accepts it as a draft policy to be
discussed at an upcoming policy meeting.
Thanks for participating in improving ARIN's policies. I'm looking forward
to hopefully working with you more in the near future.
-Scott
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Tim St. Pierre
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Yes, if that clause were added, I would have my allocation by the end of
> the week. In fact, in my immediate need application attempt, I was able to
> document that I was actively providing connectivity to over 500 devices.
>
> The silly thing about requiring the /23 first, is that I have to somehow
> find a /23, assign it, then get my /22 and give back the /23. A lot of
> nuisance for customers with static assignments and more work than it ought
> to be, since I can meet the spirit of the policy, just not the letter of it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Tim
>
>
> On 13-04-15 04:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I think this is an issue that is only going to get worse as IPv4
> exhaustion makes upstream ISPs less willing to allocate large blocks of
> addresses to downstream customers. In such a situation, I think it is
> entirely appropriate to allow a downstream ISP, which has a customer base
> large enough to justify a /23 (and is allocating those customers
> ARIN-assigned IPv6 space) to also get approved for an IPv4 /22, and be
> eligible to acquire it on the transfer market if the ARIN free pool is
> exhausted. I would personally rather not liberalize 4.2.1.6. Immediate
> need, as that is supposed to be for "exceptional" cases, but perhaps adding
> a clause to the first bullet point of 4.2.2.2. Multihomed would be
> appropriate. Maybe something like "or demonstrate the assignment of IPv6
> addresses to more than 500 devices"?
>
> Would that kind of policy help for a situation like yours?
>
> -Scott
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Scott Leibrand
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use
>> some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions
>> occur.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
>> > started. I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
>> > others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
>> >
>> > We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
>> > small town. We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
>> > and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town.
>> > When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN. We had to explain
>> > what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc. This seems reasonable
>> > and all, and eventually we got our /32. At this point, all we had was a
>> > /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
>> > for the year.
>> >
>> > Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
>> > allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
>> > problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
>> > essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
>> > any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
>> > that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>> >
>> > We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
>> > give us anything more than a /28 either.
>> >
>> > I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
>> > qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
>> >
>> > So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
>> > but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
>> > retail WiFi users. I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
>> > my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
>> > that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
>> > blacklisted.
>> >
>> > Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
>> > where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
>> > justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
>> > a little easier for new ISPs. I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
>> > but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
>> > to function.
>> >
>> > Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
>> > immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
>> > -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
>> > -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
>> > -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
>> > would still apply.
>> >
>> > I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
>> > they have IPv4 for every customer. Here I am as the little startup
>> > trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
>> > can't get any address resources.
>> >
>> > Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
>> > well? I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
>> > hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
>> > upstream is next to impossible now.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > -Tim
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Tim St. Pierre
>> > System Operator
>> > Communicate Freely
>> > 289 225 1220 x5101
>> > [email protected]
>> > www.communicatefreely.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-Discuss
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Tim St. Pierre
> System Operator
> Communicate Freely289 225 1220
> [email protected]
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130415/9eb3d320/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:38:46 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<cap-gugvhhyryrm8-fu3aazw6jpne2j94ptod962grhzwsxh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
>> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
>> problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
>> essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
>> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
>> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
>>
>> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
>> give us anything more than a /28 either.
>>
>> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
>> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
Hi Tim,
If an IPv4 address market is going to work *at all* then it will work
for this situation. It looks like you drew the short straw and get to
be the guinea pig. Find someone with a /24 willing to sell and acquire
it under NRPM 8.3. And document the heck out of the process so that
your experience can guide the next policy changes around the IPv4
market concept.
At a practical level, push your ISP harder too. By which I mean the
salesmen, not the tech staff. They have upstreams too, and one of them
has a /24 available for multihoming use. You may have to pay for the
extra work acquiring it, but they *can* get it for you.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:57:51 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<cagkmwz4h4pw_xmxmbohn-kt+laayrkh5fn2dftzjoyavqug...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:38 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
> >> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
> >> problematic. We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
> >> essentially out of address space and can't give us any. They can't get
> >> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
> >> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
> >>
> >> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
> >> give us anything more than a /28 either.
> >>
> >> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> >> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> If an IPv4 address market is going to work *at all* then it will work
> for this situation. It looks like you drew the short straw and get to
> be the guinea pig. Find someone with a /24 willing to sell and acquire
> it under NRPM 8.3. And document the heck out of the process so that
> your experience can guide the next policy changes around the IPv4
> market concept.
>
If he can't qualify for space from ARIN, how is he going to qualify to
receive space via transfer? The requirements are the same (with the
exception of 3-month vs. 24-month need, which isn't the limiting factor
here). And the minimum allocation size for ISPs is /22 per NRPM 4.2.2.2:
only end-users can get /24's from ARIN (or via transfer), under NRPM
4.3.2.2.
> At a practical level, push your ISP harder too. By which I mean the
> salesmen, not the tech staff. They have upstreams too, and one of them
> has a /24 available for multihoming use. You may have to pay for the
> extra work acquiring it, but they *can* get it for you.
>
Agreed, this is likely the most expeditious path forward. You'll need two
/24s to qualify for a /22 under current policy. If your upstreams still
refuse to allocate them to you, you might be able to find a third party
willing to do so. They typically refer to it as "leasing", but under ARIN
policy it's just another form of reallocation.
-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130415/1b963e6f/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 34
*****************************************
